Militaristic Approach to Invasive Species
Posted by: Ming Ming Wang in SW6, tags: Formosan Subterranean Termite, invasive species, militaristic terminologyWhen describing invasive species, a militaristic language approach is often taken. A war is often waged on the invaders with hope of eradicating them before they overrun local ecosystems. Brendon Larson however, disagrees with this approach. He argues that if the words chosen to persuade people that invasive species require our attention are too strong, they can have the opposite effect on the reader (Larson 2005). Larson also states that when talking about invasive species, a “war” does not really exist because “good” and “evil” sides do not exist and humans have no hope of restoring ecosystems to their original state. Furthermore, he suggests that there are alternative metaphors that can describe the invasive species situation just as accurately without having to resort to militaristic terms (Larson 2005).
While inspecting my past blog posts, I realized that combative terminology is prevalent in many of them. For example, the title of one such blog post is “The Second Battle of New Orleans”, which is clearly an implication of a “war” (Wang 2011). The “second battle” is in fact not refering to a battle at all, but to the introduction of Formosian Subterranian Termites. The blog post later mentions topics for control and management, which are refered to as “eradication methods” and using chemicals to poison the termites (Wang 2011).
I do not agree with Larson’s view. Invasive species can have unforseeable impacts on both the ecology of the environment it invades as well as having disastrous consequences for the people in that region. The use of militaristic terms has always captured my attention when talking about invasive species. Strong language is necessary in invasive species ecology because it has a much better chance of getting noticed that way. The terminology may sometimes be a bit exagerated, but sometimes that is what is required for people to take invasive species seriously.
Larson, B.M.H. 2005. The war of roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500
http://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_s2011/2011/01/20/the-second-battle-of-new-orleans/
Entries (RSS)
February 26th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I agree that the use of militaristic language is alluring and leads readers to better understand the hazards posed by invasive species. In a sense we are taking a stand against exotics just as a country would oppose another in a war. While this may slightly amplify the ecology associated with this preeminent problem, I find this writing style convincing and albeit necessary to hold people’s attention and relay importance of this cause. I find it humorous that most of us students in AIS Writing 20 used militaristic language in our writing without intending to or even recognizing it.
February 27th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
I share a similar view on Larson’s arguments and do not think that they are really strongly founded. Had you perhaps chosen to give your example blog post a different title or used different language in it, I do not think that you would have captured the attention of the reader as effectively. I know that I liked your title, and it sparked my interest in reading it. Perhaps Larson should rethink or reanalyze his arguments.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I completely agree with your opinion. Like you, it has always captured my attention and made me want to read more. I wonder if militaristic language was studied verse non-militaristic language, which would be more effective in grabbing the readers attention and in conveying the problem? My bet is Larson would lose!
February 28th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
I agree with your review of Larson’s commentary. The terminology and metaphors are completely necessary to grab the reader’s attention. Yes, its exaggerated, which makes me even wonder how Larson thinks it can make readers militaristic after reading an article.
March 6th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
“Humans have no hope in restoring ecosystems to their original state” seems to condemn any action and obliterate hope. I doubt Larson’s intent was to do either; however, one should not dash hopes. I found the reference to your past blog, presented as a link, very useful.
March 30th, 2011 at 10:56 am
I think the statement is more meant to acknowledge the fact that humans as a whole has had a far greater impact on the environment than any other species on the planet. It is hard to even know exactly how an ecosystem was before human activity became a factor in impacting it. I dont think the actions taken by people to try to restore ecosystems should be condemned, but we need to be careful of the fact that in taking action to correct the changes, we may be unknowingly causing more damage.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:12 am
I agree that the use of militaristic terms cna make it seem like invasive species are intentionally bad and theat they mean to destroy their ne habitat. While in reality the goal isn’t to destroy the invasive species its just to contain them in a way that they dont spread to new habitats and dosen’t drasticlly affect the enviornment they have already been introduced to.
April 21st, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Militaristic terminology can be good at times to convince the average person of an invasive species that could possibly be affecting their own health and the health of the environment. The term “Invasive” alone sounds militaristic, and so this type of terminology is widely used and the most common that I’ve heard. However, they are not involved in a “war” as they only need to be removed from the environment they are invading. This is the only thing I agree with Larson on, because I do not believe all invasive species should be treated as “the enemy”.